Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Find studies

A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.

We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the original source.

Hearing Loss, Hearing Aid Use, and Risk of Dementia in Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery 2024-02-01

The results of this cohort study suggest that hearing loss was associated with increased dementia risk, especially among people not using hearing aids, suggesting that hearing aids might prevent or delay the onset and progression of dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 573,088 Evidence: moderate

Prevalence Estimates of Amyloid Abnormality Across the Alzheimer Disease Clinical Spectrum

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2022-03-01

This study found that CSF-based estimates using adjusted data-driven cutoffs were up to 10% higher than PET-based estimates in people without dementia, whereas the results were similar among people with dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 97 Evidence: moderate

These data support the use of cNfL as a biomarker of neuroaxonal damage and indicate that age-specific and sex-specific (and in some cases disease-specific) reference values may be needed. 4 key findings →

Participants: 2,795 Evidence: moderate

Mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease is associated with progression to dementia (Parkinson's disease dementia) in a majority of patients. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 39 Evidence: moderate

Microglial activation in early Alzheimer trajectory is associated with higher gray matter volume

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Neurology 2019-02-22

In this in vivo study, we have demonstrated that microglial activation quantified using [ 11 C]PBR28 PET was associated with higher gray matter volume and higher hippocampal volume in patients with MCI. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 55 Evidence: moderate

Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet and Obesity-Linked Cancer Risk in EPIC

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-02-25

A total of 450 111 participants were included in the study (mean [SD] age, 51.1 [9.8] years; 70.8% women) and followed up during a median (IQR) time of 14.9 (4.1) years. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 111 Evidence: moderate

Neuronal hypertrophy in asymptomatic Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Journal of neuropathology and experimental neurology 2008-06-01

The pathologic changes of Alzheimer disease (AD) evolve very gradually over decades before the disease becomes clinically manifest. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 15 Evidence: moderate

Recent studies suggest the existence of brain-first and body-first subtypes within the Lewy body disorder (LBD) spectrum, including Parkinson's disease. 1 key finding →

Participants: 173 Evidence: low

We included 394,255 individuals including 184 incident cases of CD and 459 of UC after median follow-up of 13.6 years (4,889,910 person-years). 5 key findings →

Participants: 394,255 Evidence: moderate

The incidence of stroke and dementia are diverging across the world, rising for those in low- and middle-income countries and falling in those in high-income countries. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

In our dataset search, we identified 108 910 people with a record indicating dementia at any time. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 9,819 Evidence: moderate

This study suggests that information obtained from evaluating a subgroup of AD or MCI subject using second-generation TSPO tracers can be translated to the entire AD and MCI population. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 798 Evidence: moderate

Sortilin-mediated endocytosis determines levels of the frontotemporal dementia protein, progranulin

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neuron 2010-11-01

Video abstract The most common inherited form of Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (FTLD) known stems from Progranulin (GRN) mutation and exhibits TDP-43 plus ubiquitin aggregates. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

FDG-PET was performed on a cohort of 79 patients with newly diagnosed PD (mean disease duration 8 months) and 20 unrelated controls. 4 key findings →

Participants: 79 Evidence: moderate

↑ Change the filters

Where “Free full text” comes from

Free full text links and the Full text may need a subscription label come from Unpaywall, Europe PMC and OpenAlex records of free copies, checked 10 Oct 2026. A study with neither is unknown, not paywalled.

How the 0–100 score works — and why some entries are capped

This is alzhub's own score. It is not an official metric, not an impact factor, and no journal, publisher or ranking body endorses it. We built it so that a reader who is not a scientist can tell a landmark trial from a conference abstract without having to already know the difference. Every point comes from one of 20 components, all of them printed on the study itself, so you can disagree with our arithmetic rather than having to trust the total.

  • Journal tier up to 10 pts
  • Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
  • Study design up to 12 pts
  • Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
  • Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
  • How recent up to 5 pts
  • Sample size up to 4 pts
  • Effect reported up to 3 pts
  • Studied in people up to 3 pts
  • Randomised / blinded up to 2 pts
  • Times cited up to 7 pts
  • Citations per year up to 5 pts
  • Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
  • Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
  • Still being cited up to 4 pts
  • Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
  • Institution's track record up to 3 pts
  • Multi-centre collaboration up to 3 pts
  • Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
  • Free to read up to 2 pts

Journals are placed in ordered tiers, never given a numeric impact factor — we could not verify current impact factors from a source we control, and an invented one would be worse than none. Tier 1 is the top-tier general journals (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA, Nature, Science, Nature Medicine); tier 2 is the leading specialty journals; tier 3 is every other peer-reviewed journal. A separate part scores how much the journal's own papers are cited, which tells the tier-3 journals apart.

Two rules we don't bend. First, we never fill in a missing value: if a record does not state a sample size or a design, that component scores zero, and if we simply have no data for a part, such as a citation count, that part is left out and the study is scored on the parts we could check. The study card says which. Second, anything that is not a peer-reviewed article is capped at 16/100 and carries a warning chip — so a conference abstract or a company press release can never outrank a peer-reviewed paper, no matter how good it looks.

We rank a rigorous null result — a good trial showing that something does not work — above an early positive finding. Someone deciding whether to buy a supplement is served by that, and the rigour is already counted by the design and journal components.

The score is computed from the published data alone and is reproducible: the same file always yields the same numbers.

See the whole rubric drawn out → — four charts covering all 27,380 studies: how the scores are spread and where the cap bites, which of the 20 components the library is strong and weak on, which subjects rest on stronger evidence, and what kinds of study each subject is actually built from.

What this library is — and isn't

This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), plus smaller pulls from PubMed, Crossref and medRxiv. If a study, a drug, or a finding isn't here, that is not evidence it doesn't exist in the literature — it may simply not have been pulled in yet.

1,032 records (3.8% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 of those are preprints posted before any journal review, and the rest are conference abstracts, regulatory notices and reports. Every study card on this page states its status plainly, and the score above is capped for anything that isn't a peer-reviewed article.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed